I dont quite understand your question, however, you might find the chapter on 'memes' in 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins helpful.

From Wikipedia:
"The term "meme" .... coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, refers to a unit of cultural information transferable from one mind to another. Dawkins said, Examples of memes are tunes, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. A meme propagates itself as a unit of cultural evolution and diffusion — analogous in many ways to the behavior of the gene (the unit of genetic information). Often memes propagate as more-or-less integrated cooperative sets or groups, referred to as memeplexes or meme-complexes."

Aerlinn wrote:Would someone be able to explain to me the interrelationships between biological, cultural and technological evolution? Thanks in advance.

75 years ago, when I was 7yrs old in what became later Israel, the leader of our community, David Ben-Gurion, was asked if the community's 6-day work week might be changed to a a 5-day week. He said it was a good idea, and suggested that the workers shold start by first practicing work one day a week, then progress to practice working 2 days a week, and so on until they learn to work 5 days a week.

I suggest you first reflect on and define biological evolution, then reflect on and define etc., ... and then the interrelationship will simply pop out into view...

People have based their doctoral theses on that question and still not done an adequate job of answering it. I don't know what kind of answer you expect to get out of a biology forum. The way you phrase your question, I feel that you're looking for a one-liner to help with your homework.
This is a topic that could turn into a very interesting discussion, if approached from the right angle.
I suggest that you rephrase your topic, and perhaps state an arguable thesis. What do YOU think the relationship is?

Culture and biology are actually closely linked but only one species follow this trend...and that's human beings. It's called biocultural evolution. Biology makes culture possible and culture influences the direction of evolution. Human technology is a part of culture. Example, new drugs coming out of western nations have drastically changed the makeup of certain African tribes in West Africa (including increasing the lifespan of the population)
But this whole interrelationship between culture and biology is more in the realm of anthropology than it is with biology

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one from so simple a beginning.....The Origin of Species

It's being approached from both ends really.
Positivist anthropologists put a lot of value on biological relationships, especially when studying cultural evolution.
Until neuro-psychologists can define how the brain functions to perpetuate culture, though, it's a lot of guess-work.

I think culture is reliant on biology (survival) up until a point where technology increases fitness to such a point that cultures can develop independently of primary evolutionary selection factors.

Schröder wrote:Culture and biology are actually closely linked but only one species follow this trend...and that's human beings. It's called biocultural evolution. Biology makes culture possible and culture influences the direction of evolution. Human technology is a part of culture. Example, new drugs coming out of western nations have drastically changed the makeup of certain African tribes in West Africa (including increasing the lifespan of the population)But this whole interrelationship between culture and biology is more in the realm of anthropology than it is with biology

Good but Forgote to include Pollution matter.

As techology is growing Pollution too. Resources are diminishing...

Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol? Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".

The subject of cultural evolution is a wasteland in the social sciences because it would explain "progress" without religions being "true" and without even our secular beliefs being "true." It is not a field, therefor that would help any academic's career! So it is avoided. The so-called "meme" theory is thrown up to indicate they do have a theory, but they themselves regard it as about as intelligent and usefull as Dialectical Materialsm and that is not saying much!

If you are to study the evolution of societies, you have to treat them as organisms. This is not a likable turn of thinking to the religious or to the secular, either. Each of these social organisms would have to be large hunting-gathering social-like bodies bonded together by a common world view or religion. This also is not a popular thought because the faithful do not like to hear their faith only exists to bind a society!

So, these societies grow, mature, and then decline. They ultimately die like every other organism. Where is the Egyptian or Babylonian society now? And that is really popular---i.e., thinking of their faith as expendable!

So, social evolution is not popular, but if you really are scientific and want to see the social sciences scientifically, go to